Views on the News
June 2, 2012
Views on the News*
The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution was unique, requiring strict limitation of government power precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution made it clear that the government was not to interfere with productive nonviolent human energy. This is the key element that has permitted America’s great achievements and made America the political and economic envy of the world. Freedom is not something granted to us by the government, it is not something the government allows us to have, but one of our God-given unalienable rights. Of all the wonderful things America is about, that Individual Freedom is our most precious and greatest treasure. Individual Liberty is the absence of government restraint on our ability to think and act for ourselves. Individual Liberty is being free from government oppression and regulation, and it automatically carries with it individual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. Freedom is the capacity for self-determination. Our great nation was given birth, out of the womb of a bloody revolution for liberty, as a Representative Republic of Free Individuals, not one of Socialism and collective slaves of government. Stopping Socialism is the most important issue before the American people today. The President, upon taking office, swears to defend and protect the Constitution, but Barack Obama has done neither. It is a matter of public record that he has, in fact, intentionally done the exact opposite. We must be united in purpose to save our Republic from Obama and Socialism. Now is the time for us to be resolved to protect and defend our Individual Freedom. We, the governed, have sole consent as to whom we allow to sit in power in our Capital. Like all human beings do, per our nature, we make mistakes and one was made by electing Barack Obama as President in 2008, so now we must admit it to ourselves, suck it up and make a correction and vote this man out of office.
(“Only God and Americans can save the U.S. from Obama” by John Porter dated May 27, 2012 published by Canada Free Press at http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/46941 )
There is strong and legitimate interest in whether President Obama is a socialist, since the American electorate reacts strongly negative to “socialism” and Democrat strategists are doing their best to discredit any and all who call Obama a socialist. There is a remarkable overlap between Obama’s electoral platform and the Party of European Socialists, which represents leftist and socialist parties in the European parliament. French socialist Francois Hollande’s and Obama’s platforms are virtual carbon copies, and Hollande is quite open about and proud of being a socialist. There can be no doubt that Obama is a socialist in the European reform-Marxism tradition. The United States has still to decide whether it wants the European welfare state or not. European socialists are proud of their rich tradition and heritage that date back to the split with revolutionary Marxism at the turn of the last century. In the United States, however, candidates must conceal rather than openly proclaim their socialist beliefs. Obama brings to the table a deep distrust of free enterprise and a belief in government as the solution to most problems. Romney offers a vision of faith in private enterprise and a distrust of government intervention. Obama will disguise his views with “fair share” slogans and weak protestations of faith in private enterprise. Both sides might as well come clean. Obama should make his health care reform a centerpiece of his campaign rather than pretend it does not exist. Romney should explain the insights into American capitalism he gained at Bain Capital and why that qualifies him for the Presidency. Both should state their positions clearly and let the electorate decide. The upcoming November election offers American voters a choice that is starker than they understand and the winner will claim a popular mandate for action.
(“Is It Within Bounds To Ask: Is Obama A Socialist?” by Paul Roderick Gregory dated May 27, 2012 published by Forbes Magazine at http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/05/27/is-it-within-bounds-to-ask-is-obama-a-socialist/ )
The liberal power elite are selfish, hypocritical, arrogant, self-righteous, and, worst of all, destructive of those around them. They are willing to saddle everyone else with rules and regulations that do not apply to them, and with higher taxes that they somehow escape paying. The Buffett Rule might sound like a great idea, but it would never apply to the Buffetts of this world, or the Kerrys, Kennedys, or any other left-wing billionaire. Liberal do-gooders are always coming up with lovely schemes for redistributing other people's money and managing other people's lives. The problem is that all of these schemes do more harm than good:
· Welfare, which redistributes wealth to those who cannot work but also to those who avoid working or underreport income, is funded on the backs of those who actually do work.
· "Saving the planet" costs jobs but never actually saves anything.
· Killing fossil fuels increases energy costs and triggers inflation across the board.
Yet the liberal elite blithely support every cause that comes along with no consideration of the cost to ordinary people. In doing so, they pad their already inflated sense of self-importance, and at no cost to themselves. Scratch the surface of the liberal elite, and you will find a monstrous contempt for those "beneath" them. Liberals like Barack Obama live and breathe in a realm of utter disdain for ordinary Americans, including Congressmen who hail from what the President likes to call "Palookaville." It is not just that they are out of touch; it is that they despise what is normal and decent. The liberal game is to pretend to side with the poor and, by doing so, gain political power so as to further line one's own pockets. In all of this, the liberal elite are utterly cynical. It's not just that liberals don't know much about those "500 million" Americans. They despise them the way they despise Walmart and NASCAR and the American Legion. What it all boils down to is an appalling contempt for life. I have yet to hear the Kennedys, the Kerrys, or the Obamas, or any member of the liberal elite, speak with anything but disdain for the faith-centered life. I wish it were not so, but that is why it really does not surprise me that so many of these liberals come to a bad end, and if allowed to continue governing, they will bring the country to a bad end as well.
(“Are Liberals Immoral?” by Jeffrey Folks dated may 31, 2012 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/are_liberals_immoral.html )
It’s only fitting that Barack Obama, who so willingly brought America’s cult of the Presidency to climax, should preside over its unceremonious collapse as the signs of disappointment and disillusionment with his Presidency are now beginning to pile up. In Democrat primaries in Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia, the President fails to capture some 40% of the vote. Polling has Obama at 55% among young voters, down from the 66% who chose him instead of John McCain. Obama is a prisoner of his own choices, but a good politician can make lemonade out of just about any policy lemon. Strangely enough, when the President is the problem, the President can take steps to find a solution. When people believe the problem is the Presidency, however, a President is paralyzed. When Obama is required to speak to the country as a whole, he reminds the American people of just how hollow and foolish the Presidency has become. His most recent State of the Union address drew the same line of criticism from across the political spectrum. It was an exercise in jingoism, economic nationalism, and election year myth-making. Obama’s first term has shown America what the Presidency has become: the most powerful way in the world to do everything and succeed at nothing. As a candidate, Barack Obama promised to fundamentally transform America, but his changes made things worse and he was totally incapable of even modestly changing the Presidency, so his supporters got instead the worst President ever.
(“The cult of the presidency is going down and taking Obama with it” by James Poulos dated May 25, 2012 published by The Daily Caller at http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/25/the-cult-of-the-presidency-is-going-down-and-its-taking-obama-with-it/ )
In order to gain the sort of broad mandate that will be useful to back the kind of changes that the next president will need to drive, Romney needs to adopt a strategy that seeks as large a win as possible. As alternative Presidents go, Romney passes every plausible test of capability, character, and ideological positioning. Certainly, it is difficult to argue that someone who has served as the governor of a major state and led an international event as large as the Olympics, and who has extensive experience in the private sector, is not qualified to be president of the United States. All of the Obama campaign's attempts to date to invent supposed "character" issues for Governor Romney have ranged from trivial to petty to absurd. President Romney's first and overriding priority will have to be the restoration of the nation's finances, a program that will require large cuts in the budget and a major entitlement reforms. The larger the mandate that Romney can win, and the more Republicans whom he can carry into Congress with him, the more successful he will be in getting his reforms speedily enacted. This means that, without going overboard, the governor's campaign should seek to push beyond the boundaries of the states that George Bush won in his victories. A win in the Bush states will give Romney the White House, but victories in states that Republicans haven't carried in a generation, such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and perhaps even places like New Jersey and Oregon, will give a President Romney the sort of broad national support that he's going to require to win once he's already won the White House.
(“Romney Should Seek a Big Win” by Adam Yoshida dated May 29, 2012 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/romney_should_seek_a_big_win.html )
It is the iron law of "progressive" movements that having achieved their goals, they refuse to fade away and instead focus on perpetuating their grievances to calcify its newfound power and same-sex marriage is no exception. Rather than disbanding upon completion of their mission, these movements, now fully institutionalized, keep chugging along, and the farther they go, the more they resemble their sworn enemies, the rationale for their existence:
· The labor movement that arose as a desperate defense against unbridled exploitation has degenerated into a stultifying, mafia-style monopoly whose grip on any business dooms that business to slow strangulation.
· The civil rights movement fought discrimination, but the movement's main motto transmogrified from equality into affirmative action, i.e., establishment of black privilege.
· Feminism born of a legitimate earning for equal rights and dignity has turned into a female supremacy movement implacably hostile to the "patriarchy.
The gay rights movement, too, has been transforming itself before our very eyes. Once a movement fighting against persecution and discrimination, which is the reason why its initial demands enjoyed wide public support, it has gone from one triumph to another and won the war. The gay movement has not declared victory and gone home. Central to achieving their goal is bending society to their will and forcing it to acquiesce to their agenda. That's where same-sex marriage comes in. Few things are more destructive than gay marriage, a poison pill devised to corrode the very core of a healthy society, the institution of marriage. Not a single society in the long history of mankind has ever attempted to substitute homosexual relationships for traditional marriage. Even in places where homosexuality was viewed as normal, openly practiced, and even encouraged, marriage was sacrosanct and never called into question. Marriage has always been universally understood as a biological, social, and economic arrangement to bring into the world and rear the young, thus perpetuating the species. Indeed, humans took their cue from wild nature, where heterosexual family is virtually the sole organizing principle of life. So central is marriage to human existence that it forms the basic building block and prototype of any society. The many forms of social organization are but permutations of the basic familial pattern; the clan, the tribe and the state are merely an extended family writ large. True to the teachings of their prophet, Karl Marx, socialist revolutionaries have placed the destruction of matrimony high on their list of priorities. Radical movements are merely battalions of the revolutionary army, each charged with a particular subversive task. Undoubtedly, the overwhelming majority of rank-and-file gays are well-meaning people who have sincerely bought into the myth peddled by their leaders that the marriage license is the ultimate token of recognition of their normalcy. The wizards behind the curtain know better, and there shouldn't be any illusions about their intentions: they want nothing less than to bring down the capitalist system, and they view their movement as a battering ram to shatter its principal bastion, America. Bringing down the traditional family is a crucial step in that direction. Legalization of same-sex marriage compromises the institution of marriage and thus undermines the family built on the foundation of marriage. It has been known since the dawn of history that a family unit consisting of a man and a woman is the best nurturing environment for the children. Aside from the tremendous damage same-sex marriage does to the well-being and normal development of children, by offering an alternative to a bedrock institution, gay marriage calls into question all traditional values. There is a strong correlation between the rise of homosexual marriage and the weakening of traditional matrimony. Marx's loyal cohort Friedrich Engels, in his influential work, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the States, disclosed the game plan in a single, succinct proposition: change the concept of matrimony, and the traditional family will cease to exist; and once the family is gone, society will fall apart; and knock out the cornerstone of marriage, and the whole edifice will crumble, which is precisely the ultimate goal of the revolutionary movement.
(“Gay Marriage: The Hidden Agenda” by Victor Volsky dated May 27, 2012 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/gay_marriage_the_hidden_agenda.html )
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says we face serious threats to human health, welfare and justice and she’s absolutely right, but the crisis is not due to factory or power plant emissions, or supposed effects of “dangerous manmade global warming,” the crisis is the result of policies and regulations that her EPA is imposing in the name of preventing climate change and other hypothetical and exaggerated environmental problems. It is those government actions that are severely impacting Americans’ health, welfare, and pursuit of happiness and justice. After Congress rejected cap-tax-and-trade, President Obama said there are “other ways to skin the cat.” By hyper-regulating carbon dioxide, soot, mercury, “cross-state air pollution” from sources hundreds of miles away, and other air and water emissions, EPA intends to force numerous coal-fired power plants to shut down years before their productive life is over; block the construction of new coal-fired power plants, because none will be able to slash their carbon dioxide emissions to half of what average coal-fired plants now emit, without employing expensive (and nonexistent) CO2 capture and storage technologies; and sharply reduce emissions from cars, factories, refineries and other facilities, regardless of the cost. EPA has also issued 588 pages of rules for hydraulic fracturing for critically needed oil and natural gas, while the Obama Administration has vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline and made 95% of all publicly owned (but government controlled) lands and resources off limits to leasing, exploration, drilling and mining. These actions reflect President Obama’s campaign promise to “bankrupt any company that tries to build a new coal-fired power plant,” replace hydrocarbons with heavily subsidized solar, wind and biofuel energy, make energy prices “necessarily skyrocket”and “fundamentally transform” America’s constitutional, legal, energy, economic and social structure. Energy is the lifeblood of our nation’s economy, jobs, living standards and civil rights and anything that affects energy availability, reliability and price affects every aspect of our lives. These diktats put the federal government in charge of our entire economy and impair our health and welfare. Even the Department of Defense has been directed to waste time and money on fighting hypothetical “environmental threats” to our national security. Moreover, the anti-hydrocarbon global warming “solutions” the Obama Administration is imposing will bring no real world benefits – even assuming carbon dioxide actually drives climate change. Even worse, the health, welfare and environmental justice benefits that EPA claims will result from its regulations are equally exaggerated and illusory. They exist only in the same dishonest computer-generated virtual reality that concocted its alleged climate change, health and environmental cataclysms, and in junk-science analyses that can only be described as borderline fraud. Implementing EPA’s regulatory agenda will inflict severe economic dislocations and send shock waves through America’s factories, farmlands and families. Far from improving our health and welfare – they will make our economy, unemployment, living standards, health and welfare even worse. Our Congress and courts have completely abdicated their obligations to provide oversight and control of the EPA and the Obama Administration, and until this regime changes, hopefully in November, we can only expect more EPA damage to be done.
(“America’s Real Climate and Environmental Crisis” by Paul Driessen dated May 25, 2012 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2012/05/25/americas_real_climate_and_environmental_crisis )
It's obvious now that electric vehicles can't compete with gasoline-powered cars, even with generous government subsidies, and for years automotive engineers have documented that the performance of electric vehicles, particularly their short range and battery uncertainty under real traffic conditions, falls short in virtually every aspect. What's truly shameful is that such disparities have done nothing to change policy. Subsidizing electric vehicles has been a devil's bargain, making the development of other alternative technologies like conventional hybrids and advanced gasoline engines more difficult. Since 2008, taxpayers have spent or provided loan guarantees of $6.5 billion for electric vehicles. That includes $2.4 billion for battery and electric drive component manufacturing, $3.1 billion in loan guarantees for electric vehicle projects, and $1 billion in tax credits for the vehicles. The price that American taxpayers pay for commercializing electric vehicles is painfully evident in the billions spent on green projects that are driven by politics rather than performance. Instead of letting plug-in vehicles like the Nissan Leaf, GM Volt and Ford Focus Electric compete on their own against fuel-efficient gasoline-powered cars, the government has used subsidies to create an artificial market that otherwise would not exist. Using taxpayer dollars to favor one automotive technology over another is contrary to the free-market principles that undergird our economy. Simply put, subsidizing electric vehicles doesn't make economic sense. Supposedly the price of electric cars will come down as volumes increase, making the vehicles more affordable. Americans may not buy electric vehicles because of their shortcomings in size, comfort and range. The surest way to guarantee a product's failure is to subsidize it. If a technology, such as electric cars, isn't capable of succeeding on its own economic merits, there's no amount of taxpayer support that will ever make it a commercial success.
(“Huge subsidies give American taxpayers high-voltage shocks” by Mark J. Perry dated May 24, 2012 published by American Enterprise Institute at http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-the-environment/alternative-energy/huge-subsidies-give-american-taxpayers-high-voltage-shocks/ )
* There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news. I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning. Updates have been made this week to the following issue sections:
· Bibliography at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/welcome/bibliography.php